RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)

• From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
• Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 08:35:13 +0100
• To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCIECNGLAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 3:09 AM
> To: 'WebDAV'
> Subject: RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)
>
>
>
> From: Brian Korver [mailto:briank@xythos.com]
>
> Other than loops, what are the problems unique to multiple
> bindings and partial MOVE?
>
> One example was posted in the message below:
>
> From:	Clemm, Geoff [gclemm@Rational.Com]
> Sent:	Monday, March 03, 2003 6:34 PM
> Subject:	RE: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues)
>
> ...
> because it can cause a DELETE in one collection to cause a change
> in another collection, and this kind of "deletion side effect"
> was something we explicitly were trying to avoid. For example,
> suppose /henry/has-friend/jeff and /jim/has-friend/jeff
> were bindings to the same collection, JEFF, and JEFF has a binding
> named "wife" to a resource, MARI. Now suppose henry gets mad
> at jeff, and issues a "DELETE /henry/has-friend/jeff" request.
> But suppose at that moment someone else has a Depth:0 lock
> on the /henry/has-friend collection. The result of a "best effort"
> deletion is the removal of the "wife" binding from JEFF. That
> may be OK if you were just updating the information accessible
> from /henry (he isn't JEFF's friend anymore, and he's happy to
> purge as much information about JEFF as he can), but with multiple
> bindings, "best effort" deletion has now trashed the JEFF object
> in all the other contexts in which it is still visible (and the
> folks that still are his friends are still interested in that
> information).
>
> So we're not saying that "best effort deletion" is always a bad thing,
> but we are saying that "best effort deletion" is a bad thing when
> you care about multiple bindings to the same resource.
Geoff,
I don't think this issue exists if a server does UNBIND when removing one of
multiple bindings and non-atomic-DELETE when removing the last binding (see
[1]).
[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2003JanMar/0263.html>
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Saturday, 8 March 2003 02:35:26 UTC